Norris = Bonderman?

Recommended Posts

I'm a big Norris fan. Obviously I'm disappointed by how things have transpired this season for him, but he still shows a lot of flashes. The talent is there. It's just a matter of harnessing it. He's so tightly wound...I think if he could just loosen up and have fun out there the results could/would change. Easier said than done, though.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I'm a big Norris fan. Obviously I'm disappointed by how things have transpired this season for him, but he still shows a lot of flashes. The talent is there. It's just a matter of harnessing it. He's so tightly wound...I think if he could just loosen up and have fun out there the results could/would change. Easier said than done, though.

The tightly wound thing is a part of it, but they have also made changes to try to clean up his delivery so I'm not surprised he hasn't achieved consistency with it - also disappointed, but not really surprised.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Bonderman's head never seemed to be in the game, and probably being called up at 20 messed his training up. Norris... I have a feeling that the Tigers can't, for whatever reason, capitalize on "stuff" pitchers - Norris isn't a Verlander or a Scherzer.

I wonder, sometimes, how much of this is a Tiger problem vs. a MLB problem.

Here's what I mean: As a Lions fan, it's very easy for me to point out the many, many Lions draft busts. Players who either were just a flat out failure or who might have had some limited success, but no where near the "spot" at which they were taken.

But... here's the thing: This is probably true of MOST NFL draftees. MOST NFL players don't end up becoming super stars. Most either become role players or achieve some level of success, but not necessarily to their level. It's easy as a Lions fan to count the misses... but their ratio success to failure in the draft, while probably worse then the league average, likely isn't that but worse than average.

Long story short: Are "stuff" pitchers not developing a problem with the Tigers, or do other teams have a similar ratio of success/failure with pitchers like this? As Tiger's fans we remember the guys who failed here, but we likely don't hear about the guys who failed for other teams. I know I don't follow baseball NEARLY well enough to know about guys on other teams who might have been highly thought of but washed out.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I wonder, sometimes, how much of this is a Tiger problem vs. a MLB problem.

Here's what I mean: As a Lions fan, it's very easy for me to point out the many, many Lions draft busts. Players who either were just a flat out failure or who might have had some limited success, but no where near the "spot" at which they were taken.

But... here's the thing: This is probably true of MOST NFL draftees. MOST NFL players don't end up becoming super stars. Most either become role players or achieve some level of success, but not necessarily to their level. It's easy as a Lions fan to count the misses... but their ratio success to failure in the draft, while probably worse then the league average, likely isn't that but worse than average.

Long story short: Are "stuff" pitchers not developing a problem with the Tigers, or do other teams have a similar ratio of success/failure with pitchers like this? As Tiger's fans we remember the guys who failed here, but we likely don't hear about the guys who failed for other teams. I know I don't follow baseball NEARLY well enough to know about guys on other teams who might have been highly thought of but washed out.

If the NFL was drafting players out of high school instead of after three or four years of college football, you'd see a much higher bust rate. Imagine if the recruiting rankings that are used for college football were instead used as a draft board for NFL teams. Think about the various four star and five star recruits that don't end up as decent NFL players.

Or imagine if the MLB draft allowed teams to draft from the players that have been in the minors for 3 or 4 years.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

If the NFL was drafting players out of high school instead of after three or four years of college football, you'd see a much higher bust rate. Imagine if the recruiting rankings that are used for college football were instead used as a draft board for NFL teams. Think about the various four star and five star recruits that don't end up as decent NFL players.

Or imagine if the MLB draft allowed teams to draft from the players that have been in the minors for 3 or 4 years.

The Tigers could get so many 4A sluggers and relievers with control problems if they could do this

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I wonder, sometimes, how much of this is a Tiger problem vs. a MLB problem.

Here's what I mean: As a Lions fan, it's very easy for me to point out the many, many Lions draft busts. Players who either were just a flat out failure or who might have had some limited success, but no where near the "spot" at which they were taken.

But... here's the thing: This is probably true of MOST NFL draftees. MOST NFL players don't end up becoming super stars. Most either become role players or achieve some level of success, but not necessarily to their level. It's easy as a Lions fan to count the misses... but their ratio success to failure in the draft, while probably worse then the league average, likely isn't that but worse than average.

Long story short: Are "stuff" pitchers not developing a problem with the Tigers, or do other teams have a similar ratio of success/failure with pitchers like this? As Tiger's fans we remember the guys who failed here, but we likely don't hear about the guys who failed for other teams. I know I don't follow baseball NEARLY well enough to know about guys on other teams who might have been highly thought of but washed out.

That could be true, being invested in a certain teams organization and players leaves you way more susceptible to be critical every time a prospect/young player doesn't pan out as well. And to an extent, we have been very lucky for certain pitchers meeting and exceeding expectations (Verlander, Scherzer, Fulmer), without looking I wouldn't be surprised if those big performances put us above the middle of the pack. However, a big part, is for me anyway, Bonderman is tied very much to the 2003-2005 Tigers team, and though his performance/team performance isn't likely his fault (granted, he did have some decent years) I do think allowing to be up in 2003 when frankly, he didn't show he wasn't ready probably messed with his development.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Bonderman's head never seemed to be in the game, and probably being called up at 20 messed his training up. Norris... I have a feeling that the Tigers can't, for whatever reason, capitalize on "stuff" pitchers - Norris isn't a Verlander or a Scherzer.

See, I always thought he was too intense and too invested in his pitch-to-pitch results. He never seemed to be having fun out there. Now, that may have been a result of being called up at 20.